there was some confusion if all FESCo seat in the planed election will be voted on; yes, a voting on a complete new FESCo this time (quoting spot:"it means something that the FESCO members are chosen by FE even if it ends up being the same people"). Maybe in the future we'll switch to a scheme where each election after each release of core will be on 50% of the seats.

only a small number of self-nominations where there until Thursday; as a result skvidal nominated some people from the old FESCo. They don't have a mission statement in the wiki page, but this is considered to be okay for existing FESCo members (it's probably also okay for non-existing FESCo members, but it probably nowers chances to be elected).

deadline is Sunday night (CET); but we have no system how to actualy do the election so the deadline is extended until we have a proper system. When it will be ready there is a 24 hour gap for last-minute nominations and another 24 hour gap until the actual voting begins (both things will be announced on fedora-extras-list)

the election will happen with a scheme "We have X FESCo seats and Y nominees for it. vote for X people"

would be nice if we could use the accounts system to manage the voting; jwb and spot are looking into that (help from python hackers appreciated)

Weekly sponsorship nomination

tibbs, Jason L Tibbitts III accepted

changes to the packaging/review guidelines

discussed and agreed on:

"Game music or audio content is permissible, as long as the content is freely distributable without restriction, and the format is not patent encumbered."

"If the packager needs a sponser, the reviewer must be capable of sponsoring to take ownership of the review. Other parties are welcome to make suggestions and add themselves to the CC of hte bug, but should not take ownership of the bug or the review."

free discussion

seems we need a better way to track and resolve legal issues

Full Log

19:00 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress
19:00 < thl> | k, who's around?
19:00 * | f13 calls 'here'
19:00 --> | has joined #fedora-extras
19:00 * | f13 points at , he's here too.
19:00 < f13> | (she?)
19:01 * | skvidal is here
19:01 * | jeremy is sort of here
19:01 * | spot is also here
19:01 * | scop is here
19:01 * | jima hides from the fesco meeting
19:01 * | _wart_ is watching from the sidelines
19:01 * | is here
19:01 < thl> | k, lets start
19:01 * | Anvil <- _o/
19:01 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- kernel modules
19:01 < thl> | nothing new here
19:02 < thl> | the fix for kmodtool that scop commited seems to work
19:02 < thl> | yum installs kmod's now normally and does not update them
19:02 < scop> | I think this item is pretty much done, we just need some kmods reviewed and into the repo
19:02 < thl> | jeremy, warren, we should convert GFS and Co soon (at least before test1)
19:02 < scop> | (or new maintainers for the thinkpad/lirc ones)
19:03 < thl> | scop, mostly agreed
19:03 < thl> | scop, some fine-tuning can still be done later
19:03 < thl> | I'll move it to my own todo list
19:03 < warren> | thl, agreed, I'll push the necessary people.
19:04 < thl> | warren, thx; if they need help I can try to find time to help
19:04 < thl> | k, moving on
19:04 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- EOL / Security Team
19:04 < thl> | k, what are the opinions?
19:04 < f13> | who's going to drive the GFS issue?
19:04 < thl> | do we want to change anything after the last discussion on fedora-extras-list?
19:04 < thl> | or proceed with the proposed plan?
19:04 < f13> | thl: I'm still waiting for warren's email w/ issues....
19:05 < f13> | warren: ?
19:05 < thl> | warren, still issues with the plan?
19:05 < warren> | I was satisfied by the plan
19:05 < warren> | wasn't it posted to the public for comment as we discussed last week?
19:05 < thl> | warren, it was last friday
19:05 < tibbs> | I recall a lot of argument, but no resolution.
19:06 < tibbs> | Or at least, no agreement on changes.
19:06 < thl> | tibbs, that's normal ;-)
19:06 < warren> | Given the lack of agreement, someone just needs to make the decision to go forward.
19:06 < warren> | thl, where there any revisions after the Friday post?
19:06 < tibbs> | I agree. If something is unworkable we can always revisit, but we have to get started.
19:06 < thl> | warren, nope
19:06 < f13> | I didn't see anything needing changes.
19:07 < f13> | the 'luminary' interested parties all seemed resonably satisfied with it.
19:07 < f13> | I'm of the opinion to go forward, any changes or issues can be brought up as needed.
19:07 < thl> | so, can I get some "+1" for the plan proposed in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-April/msg01650.html
19:07 < warren> | Can we vote on this last in the meeting?
19:08 < warren> | talk about other things first
19:08 < warren> | wait, do we have a quorum?
19:08 < warren> | Who is actually here today?
19:08 < f13> | warren: scroll up
19:09 < thl> | f13, skvidal, jeremy, scop, /me, spot, warren afaics
19:09 < warren> | ok
19:09 < jpo> | and me
19:09 < f13> | skvidal, jeremy, spot, scop, f13, thl, warren, jpo
19:09 < warren> | sounds good
19:10 < thl> | so vote now or at the end?
19:10 < spot> | the plan seems reasonable enough to me. +1
19:10 < scop> | +1
19:10 < tibbs> | Just to clarify, "When the Fedora Project drops support for a Fedora Core release"
19:10 < tibbs> | means that even legacy isn't interested in maintenance, right?
19:11 < jeremy> | thl: looks good to me. +1
19:11 < warren> | +1
19:11 < thl> | tibbs, yes
19:11 < jpo> | +1
19:11 < skvidal> | +1
19:11 < f13> | tibbs: no, what it means is that Legacy is hidden in the lenghty of when Fedora Project drops something.
19:11 < f13> | +1
19:11 < f13> | tibbs: Fedora Project includes both Red Hat efforts and Legacy efforts.
19:12 < warren> | tibbs, we eventually want to merge Legacy into the rest of Fedora and eliminate the different names, but that is a different issue. The focus of this new security plan is the security team which handles tracking, and if necessary fixing.
19:12 < tibbs> | I understand; I think some were confused by that.
19:12 < f13> | warren: and the EOL thing (:
19:12 < thl> | k, so we agreed on this one -- the proposed EOL/Security Team plan is it for now
19:12 < tibbs> | Nonvoting +1 from me (as a member of the security team)
19:12 < f13> | incidentally, the security team has already moved forward with doing work. We now have cvs modules for tracking issues relating to Extras, a mailing list w/ activity, etc...
19:13 < f13> | so I'll be happy to report to them that we're a go (;
19:13 < tibbs> | Yes, we're working on stuff.
19:13 < thl> | :)
19:13 < spot> | well, its a good thing we rubber stamped it then. ;)
19:13 < thl> | k, I'll move on
19:13 < jwb> | bress is leading that right?
19:13 < tibbs> | Yes.
19:13 < jwb> | he's here then. no need to report ;)
19:13 < f13> | jwb: wasn't sure if he was paying attention.
19:13 < f13> | jwb: and there are others on the team that may not be here.
19:14 < jwb> | yeah, i was being a smart arse
19:14 < jwb> | sorry, proceed
19:14 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- FESCo future
19:14 < f13> | Ok, so since this passed, what do we have to do to put it into effect? Where do we list the EOL policy and such?
19:14 < bress> | I'm here, but wasn't paying attention until I got pinged just now, what's up?
19:14 < jwb> | f13, wiki?
19:14 < f13> | bress: we approved the EOL and security policy.
19:14 < thl> | f13, good question -- someone needs to put it in the right place in the wiki
19:14 < f13> | jwb: yeah, just brainstorming ideas of where in the wiki.
19:14 < thl> | f13, can you handle that for EOL?
19:15 < f13> | thl: sure.
19:15 * | f13 action items.
19:15 < warren> | f13, we can always reorganize later if the chosen location is not ideal, so don't worry about where.
19:15 < thl> | who handles Security Team -- tibbs ?
19:15 <-- | giallu has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
19:15 < tibbs> | I'm helping, not running.
19:15 < thl> | jwb ?
19:15 < jwb> | tibbs, he means putting it in the wiki
19:15 < f13> | tibbs: helping could include updating the wiki (;
19:16 < thl> | exactly ;-)
19:16 < f13> | bress: did you start a wiki section for the security team?
19:16 * | jwb would like to see tibbs or bress do it
19:16 < f13> | thl: honestly, we can take this to the security list.
19:16 < bress> | f13: not yet.
19:16 < tibbs> | Ah, yes, I thought you meant leadin the team. Yes, I'll put the linked policy in the wiki.
19:16 < jwb> | excellent :)
19:16 < thl> | tibbs, thx
19:16 < f13> | thl: we'll create a wiki section for the security team, include our policy somewhere there, and link to it from the Extras page somewhere.
19:16 < thl> | f13, sounds like a good plan
19:17 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- FESCo future (now for real)
19:17 < thl> | until now there is only one self-nomination
19:17 < thl> | deadline is sunday night (CET)
19:17 < skvidal> | looks like we know who is in charge from now on, then! :)
19:17 * | spot is about to send in his nomination
19:18 < thl> | what do we do if we less then X nominations?
19:18 < ixs> | thl: suggestion from the sidelines: do not wait for self-nominations, ask people you trust if they'd be willing to be nominated and if yes, nominate them.
19:18 < jwb> | was wondering that myself
19:18 < tibbs> | I may be interested, but feel that I may not be qualified.
19:18 < thl> | X some number between 10 and 20
19:18 < skvidal> | thl: realize no one wants to do it and go home? :)
19:18 < jima> | i theoretically could be interested, but i know i'm not qualified.
19:18 < spot> | perhaps everyone on FESCO should be automagically nominated unless they bow out?
19:19 < f13> | hrm,
19:19 < skvidal> | spot: party pooper
19:19 < jima> | spot: apathy enabler!
19:19 < f13> | what are we expressing as necessary qualifications?
19:19 < f13> | jima: tibbs: why do you feel not qualified?
19:19 < jima> | f13: i'm quite new to FE, for starters.
19:19 < tibbs> | Lack of work in the community.
19:19 < spot> | i can vouch for the lack of jima's qualifications. ;)
19:19 < bpepple> | f13: Largely undefined as far as I can tell.
19:19 < jima> | spot: thank you ;)
19:19 < thl> | f13, I'd say fedora packager and at least two hours a week for Extras related work
19:20 < tibbs> | I only maintain 2 packages (2 more up for review forever)
19:20 < skvidal> | can we make contigent self-nominations?
19:20 < f13> | hah, that takes me out (;
19:20 < thl> | or better: at least two hours for FESCo/week
19:20 < skvidal> | ie: I'll self-nominate if there are less than 15 folks nominated so far?
19:20 < f13> | skvidal: I don't see why not.
19:20 < skvidal> | b/c I don't want to be in someone's way.
19:20 < scop> | ditto here
19:20 < tibbs> | I can do a few hours per week total for Fedora, but I want to keep pushing reviews through.
19:20 < skvidal> | scop: you don't want me to be in someone's way? :)
19:21 < scop> | :)
19:21 < f13> | I'm sure there are folks that don't want to be on FESCO anymore, but if we don't get enough nominations, perhaps we'll draw straws as to who gets replaced.
19:21 < jima> | skvidal: outta my way! *shoves*
19:21 < scop> | (no, I don't want to be in someone's way either)
19:21 < jima> | f13: musical chairs. (might be tricky in the digital world.)
19:21 < bpepple> | I've thought about it, but haven't got around to writing any kind mission statement.
19:22 < jwb> | if the number of nominations < seats, that makes voting easier ;)
19:22 < f13> | hrm.
19:22 < jwb> | thl, i think you'll see some self-nominations show up at the last minute
19:22 < thl> | jwb, agreed
19:22 < f13> | (not that I need it) but do we have a method of saying 'I"d rather not see ${person} in fesco' ?
19:22 * | jima prepares his self-nomination sniping software.
19:22 < ixs> | jima: nom-o-matic?
19:23 < skvidal> | f13: the anti-nomination
19:23 < jwb> | f13, i thought the current FESCo had to narrow down the list for people to vote on
19:23 < jima> | ixs: yeah, it'll be in extras by next week ;)
19:23 < skvidal> | I'd like to anti-nominate eric raymond
19:23 < jwb> | "primaries" in a sense
19:23 < warren> | skvidal, I'd second that.
19:23 < jima> | skvidal: *dies*
19:23 < f13> | jwb: yeah, but if there are less people than chairs open, voting becomes unnecessary
19:23 < bpepple> | jwb: I think that's a pretty good idea.
19:23 < jwb> | f13, true
19:24 < f13> | but I'd rather provide a method for people to express a non-confidence in the nominees.
19:24 * | jwb creates 17 false wiki names...
19:24 < jwb> | ;)
19:24 * | thl considers to write self-nominations for some people
19:24 < jwb> | f13, method for non-confidence is important
19:24 < thl> | k, let's agree on a number
19:25 < thl> | if less nominations than "number" we extent the nomination period
19:25 < thl> | I'd say "number=20"
19:25 < jwb> | are we keeping half of the current FESCo or is every seat up for election?
19:26 < warren> | keeping whoever wants to stay and has actually done something?
19:26 * | jwb sighs
19:26 < jwb> | yes
19:26 < jwb> | or at least whoever wants to stay and _plans_ on doing somethign
19:26 < spot> | ok, now we're up to 2.
19:27 < jwb> | i thought we had roughly half that wanted out last week
19:27 * | thl also needs to write a self nomination
19:27 < warren> | are people turned off by the requirement of writing their plan?
19:27 < jwb> | i'm not really all that concerned if all the seats are up for election. it just makes the vote that much harder
19:28 * | spot only learned to write last night... :P
19:28 < jwb> | warren, perhaps it's simply a time issue
19:28 < warren> | wait, ALL seats are up for election?
19:28 < tibbs> | Not me. I just got the impression that there was a hierarchy of involvement:
19:28 < jwb> | warren, that's what i'm asking
19:28 < bpepple> | warren: I think that might be turning some people off.
19:28 < f13> | all seats may be a bad thing.
19:28 < warren> | all seats is a bad thing
19:28 < tibbs> | reviewer -> package maintainer -> sponsor -> committee member
19:28 < jwb> | ah, finally
19:28 < jwb> | tibbs, not necessarily
19:29 < jwb> | tibbs, you're doing other things. you don't need sponsor auth to be on FESCo
19:29 < warren> | although tibbs will probably get it this meeting
19:29 < thl> | warren, f13, well, what do suggest
19:29 < jwb> | warren, ssh! trying to illustrate a point :)
19:29 * | f13 votes for spot's army of ninjas
19:29 < thl> | only vote on the seats where poeple said "I'll leave?"
19:29 < jwb> | thl, yes
19:30 < thl> | jwb, nope
19:30 < warren> | thl, yes
19:30 < f13> | thl: a max of 1/2 the seats for open positions.
19:30 < f13> | that way we have a max of 50% turnover each vote. Retain some tribal knowledge each time.
19:30 < warren> | don't need to set a max
19:30 < thl> | jwb, I don#t like that because that would mean that some people remain that I haven#t seen once here in the meeting
19:30 < warren> | if people want to leave, you can't prevent them
19:30 < tibbs> | You can't stop people from quitting.
19:30 < f13> | warren: what if everybody wanted to elave?
19:30 < warren> | f13, then we have bigger problems.
19:31 < f13> | so far we'v eonly had 2 say they want to stay (by 'say' I mean nominate themselves)
19:31 < skvidal> | hold on
19:31 < skvidal> | just stop for a second
19:31 < jwb> | thl, ok let's start this way: who is currently on FESCo that _should_ stay?
19:31 < skvidal> | I think scop and I have a good point
19:31 < skvidal> | we are willing to stay and help if there is no one else who wants to fill in
19:31 < skvidal> | but we don't want to get in the way of other people gaining experience and contributing valuably
19:31 < f13> | skvidal: that is a good point, a safety-net nomination
19:32 < skvidal> | scop: is that accurate?
19:32 < warren> | f13, you're confusing the issue.
19:32 * | spot wants to stay, but is willing to let contributors vote on whether they think i should stay or not.
19:32 < thl> | jwb, I'm not sure on this myself completely
19:32 < warren> | I don't think it is a good use of time to re-vote in people that want to stay.
19:32 < skvidal> | I don't want to quit fesco necessarily - I just don't want to stop someone who might be able/willing to do more than me
19:32 < jima> | spot: is "lynch him!" an option on the voting form?
19:32 < scop> | skvidal, yes
19:33 < spot> | jima: yes, its right next to the picture of my ninja army.
19:33 < jima> | sweet.
19:33 < warren> | We're wasting time if we seriously want to revote everyone back in.
19:33 < spot> | warren: i think the notable difference is that we (FESCO) aren't the sole voters.
19:33 < jwb> | as it stands right now, you don't have enough nominations to fill even half the seats
19:33 < thl> | We IMHO should revote all once
19:33 < |Jef|> | skvidal: you left out the word damage in that sentence
19:33 < thl> | and after FC6 50% again
19:34 < thl> | after FC7 the other 50%
19:34 < tibbs> | Seth, why not wait a bit and see what the level of quality of the nominees is?
19:34 < thl> | and so forth
19:34 < warren> | The number of nominees makes a difference here.
19:34 < skvidal> | tibbs: quanity will matter first :)
19:34 < jwb> | thl, that is fine with me but you run into the numbers issue there
19:34 < thl> | jwb, yeah, I know :-/
19:34 < |Jef|> | tibbs: 'qaulity' and democracy are categorically anti-coorelated
19:34 * | spot still thinks anyone on FESCO who wants to stick around, should be nominated now.
19:35 < jwb> | spot, yes
19:35 < skvidal> | alright I'll do that.
19:35 < skvidal> | anyone who wants to be nominated
19:35 < skvidal> | say 'yes' now
19:35 < jwb> | spot, wait... nominated or self-nominate?
19:35 < warren> | yes
19:35 < skvidal> | jwb: nominated
19:35 < warren> | So we *are* revoting in everyone?
19:35 < f13> | warren: thats only fair.
19:35 < skvidal> | doesn't matter
19:35 < skvidal> | if you want to be on fesco say 'yes'
19:35 < spot> | warren: we're not voting in anyone, we're just nominating
19:35 < warren> | This seems like a huge waste of time to me.
19:36 < jima> | just because they're nominated doesn't mean they're voted back in.
19:36 * | spot thinks that it means something that the FESCO members are chosen by FE
19:36 < spot> | even if it ends up being the same people
19:36 < f13> | indeed
19:36 * | thl agrees with spot
19:36 < skvidal> | spot: I agree
19:36 < bpepple> | spot: +1
19:36 < skvidal> | who else wants to be nominated?
19:36 < skvidal> | I am in a nominating mood
19:37 < skvidal> | alright - I'll do it differently
19:37 * | jima produces reality tv show: 'who wants to be a fesco member?'
19:37 < skvidal> | anyone on fesco who does not wish to be nominated say 'no' righ now
19:37 < f13> | no
19:37 < tibbs> | You should probably do this on your mailing list; or is everyone who is active here now?
19:37 < warren> | skvidal, Sopwith and Gregdek said they wished to leave.
19:37 < skvidal> | alright - the rest of you cats get nominated :)
19:37 < spot> | thl: can i assume that you'd like to stay on FESCO? :) or are you protected from this?
19:37 < jwb> | imho: thl, warren, skvidal, spot, scop, jeremy should be nominated
19:37 * | spot self-nominated
19:38 < thl> | jwb, and mschwendt
19:38 < jwb> | thl, yes
19:38 < warren> | I don't think silence should mean nomination.
19:38 < thl> | spot, I'd like to stay but I'll write my nomination myself ;-)
19:38 < f13> | take it to the email list.
19:38 < jwb> | i would nominate other, but they don't want to be :)
19:38 < spot> | jeremy?
19:38 < skvidal> | this isn't a rape case - silence is consent :)
19:38 < spot> | and skvidal knows about rape cases. ;)
19:38 < tibbs> | Thanks to whoever just pushed the cloaks through.
19:38 < warren> | seriously, some members of FESCO have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
19:38 < jeremy> | hm?
19:38 < spot> | tibbs: welcome
19:38 < skvidal> | spot: I have not now, nor have I ever played lacrosse
19:38 < thl> | skvidal, there are people in FESCo that we havent seen for months
19:38 < jeremy> | (sorry, people bugging me :-)
19:38 < warren> | Their continued silence shouldn't mean consent.
19:39 < jima> | spot: oh, thanks.
19:39 < jwb> | jeremy, do you want to be on fesco still?
19:39 < thl> | those should at least say "Hi" to get nominated
19:39 < spot> | jeremy: you want to stay on FESCO?
19:39 < f13> | warren: I agree.
19:39 < skvidal> | thl: I know - I'll keep that in mind
19:39 < f13> | this shouldn't be done on IRC w/ only part of our memebers here.
19:39 < jeremy> | yep
19:39 < f13> | a call to email list should go out, ack to be considered for staying.
19:39 < spot> | f13: well, we can at least harrass those of us still here
19:39 < jeremy> | I just haven't gotten to writing my self-nomination yet
19:39 < f13> | no ack, no stay.
19:39 < jwb> | f13, which list?
19:39 < f13> | jwb: fesco-list
19:39 * | spot gives jeremy a round tuit
19:39 < skvidal> | jpo: you want in?
19:39 * | jwb grumbles
19:39 < f13> | jwb: hrm?
19:39 <-- | darkoilic has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
19:39 < jpo> | yes
19:40 < jwb> | f13, fesco list is closed. i would at least like to see who said yes in a relatively timely manner
19:40 < scop> | about numbers, is it going to be 1 vote per voter?
19:40 <-- | tibbs-cellphone has quit ()
19:40 < thl> | scop, skvidal, btw, if we can a lot of nominations you can still say "no" later if you want to make space for other people
19:40 < f13> | jwb: sure, we can post the results in the manner of "these people wish to stay"
19:40 < thl> | s/cat/get/
19:40 < skvidal> | here's what I have, then
19:40 < jwb> | scop, i think it should be something like: we have X seats and Y voters. vote for X people
19:41 < skvidal> | removing the folks who haven't been here in a while
19:41 < skvidal> | TomCallaway
19:41 < skvidal> | SethVidal - contingent
19:41 < skvidal> | ThorstenLeemhuis
19:41 < skvidal> | JeremyKatz
19:41 < ixs> | scop: make it one vote per candidate. Possible votes to cast are yes, no and abstain.
19:41 < skvidal> | Jose-?PedroOliviera
19:41 < skvidal> | MichaelSchwendt
19:41 < jwb> | s/Y voters/Y nominees
19:41 < skvidal> | ?VilleSkyttÃ€ - contingent
19:41 < skvidal> | WarrenTogami
19:41 < scop> | jwb, ixs, both sound ok to me
19:41 * | spot thinks jwb's idea is the most sane
19:42 < jwb> | omg someone said i had a sane idea
19:42 * | jwb writes this down
19:42 * | scop seconds spot
19:43 < jwb> | skvidal, put that list in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Election and make them fill in the blanks ?
19:43 < jwb> | oh you did
19:43 < jwb> | nm
19:43 < thl> | I'm fine with "X seats and Y voters. vote for X people"
19:43 < jima> | jwb: you have an insane idea. (does that cancel out?)
19:43 < jwb> | Y nominees
19:43 < skvidal> | jwb: I put it in: the nominations page
19:43 < thl> | jwb, yes, sorry
19:43 < skvidal> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Nominations
19:44 < jwb> | jima, the insane to sane ratio is very skewed :)
19:44 < jwb> | skvidal, right
19:44 < jima> | jwb: i know the feeling.
19:44 --> | tibbs-cellphone (Jason Tibbitts) has joined #fedora-extras
19:45 < thl> | k, so just to be sure: we go for the "X seats and Y nominees. vote for X people" route?
19:45 < thl> | can I get some +1 please?
19:45 < spot> | +1
19:45 < thl> | (or 0 or -1)
19:45 < jwb> | +1
19:45 < scop> | +1
19:45 < jeremy> | +1
19:45 < jpo> | +1
19:45 * | thl will proceed in 10
19:46 < thl> | k, settled
19:46 < skvidal> | +1
19:46 < f13> | +1
19:46 < thl> | k, how do we actually do the vote?
19:46 * | skvidal was late
19:46 * | spot thinks it would be nice if we could use the accounts system to manage the voting
19:46 < skvidal> | thl: jwb was looking into that
19:46 < thl> | yeah, saw the mail
19:46 < spot> | login, vote once (multiple times if you're in Chicago)
19:46 < jwb> | yeah, i pinged Sopwith about accounts access
19:46 < skvidal> | spot: only if you're already deceased
19:46 < thl> | jwb, are there any chances to get this running soon?
19:47 < jima> | skvidal: what about if you vote as someone already deceased?
19:47 < jwb> | thl, haven't heard back from Sopwith yet
19:47 < spot> | skvidal: its not my fault if snowball I wants to vote Daley.
19:47 < jwb> | thl, though i like spot's idea better than the email thing i had
19:47 < jima> | i like the idea with the accounts system, yeah.
19:48 < thl> | jwb, the important thing IMHO is: "We should have a voting system and do the vote in May "
19:48 * | spot might have cvs access to the accounts system
19:48 < jwb> | right
19:48 < thl> | I'd like to get this done this month
19:48 < spot> | not entirely sure about that though, as i've never really tried to use it
19:48 < jwb> | spot, probably. it's on an internal RH server
19:48 < thl> | k, I'll try to poke Sopwith
19:49 < thl> | jwb, spot, everyone else: help appreciated
19:49 < jwb> | spot, how's your python? from the errors i keep getting that seems to be what much of the accounts is written in
19:49 * | jima watches spot try to figure out how to rope pjones into doing it
19:50 < spot> | my python is rough, but i can probably muddle through it
19:50 < spot> | i learned all my python from anaconda!
19:51 < jima> | eww. i anti-nominate spot to modify the accounts system.
19:51 < thl> | k, one thing related to that:
19:51 < jwb> | if i get access i can help too
19:51 < thl> | should we extend the self-nomination preiod until the actual voting begins?
19:51 < skvidal> | <nod>
19:51 < jwb> | thl, yes. i think a 24 hour gap might be nice
19:51 < thl> | jwb, agreed
19:52 < jwb> | give people time to read everything before the vote begins
19:52 < thl> | k, anything else regarding the FESCo voting?
19:53 * | thl will move on soon
19:53 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Weekly sponsorship nomination
19:53 < thl> | k, what about tibbs?
19:53 < jwb> | +1
19:54 < thl> | +1 from me
19:54 < jpo> | +1
19:54 < tibbs> | meep
19:54 < thl> | k, tibbs sponsor now
19:54 < thl> | any other nominations?
19:55 < warren> | +1
19:55 < scop> | tibbs, welcome
19:55 < tibbs> | Thanks.
19:56 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Free discussion related to extras
19:56 < thl> | k, anything else?
19:56 < spot> | i have packaging guidelines changes to propose
19:56 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- spot> | i have packaging guidelines changes to propose
19:56 < jwb> | yay
19:56 < tibbs> | I have to split; will follow on my phone.
19:57 < f13> | spot: whee.
19:57 < spot> | * Game music or audio content is permissible, as long as the content is freely distributable without restriction.
19:57 < spot> | I'd like to add that to the guidelines.
19:57 < _wart_> | +1
19:57 < warren> | spot, what if the music is an additional 400MB?
19:57 < f13> | is .mp3 content itself freely distributable?
19:58 < ixs> | f13: the content is no problem, it's jusst not playable.
19:58 < f13> | k
19:58 < bpepple> | spot: Any issues with the type of music? Ogg - Wav only?
19:58 < jeremy> | spot: it might be worth mentioning content format
19:58 < scop> | whatever there's a player/libs/support in FC+FE?
19:58 < warren> | scop, +1
19:58 < ixs> | scop: sensible.
19:58 < f13> | but is it easy to split off one content from another?
19:58 < spot> | "and the format is not patent encumbered"
19:58 < spot> | ?
19:58 < f13> | spot: that sounds good.
19:59 < jeremy> | spot: gets a good to go from me
19:59 < thl> | yeah, that's better
19:59 < ixs> | spot: sure you wanna go there? even ogg can be considered patent encumbered.
19:59 < warren> | "and the format is playable"?
19:59 < spot> | ixs: patented != patent encumbered
19:59 <-- | mspevack has quit ("Leaving")
19:59 < tibbs-cellp> | player must be in distro
19:59 < spot> | warren: if they're packaging it up as game music, it better be usable by the game, dontcha think?
20:00 < warren> | spot, are we worried about game music size?
20:00 < spot> | disk is cheap.
20:00 < jeremy> | warren: I'm not
20:00 < ixs> | ack
20:00 < spot> | i'm not worried.
20:00 < f13> | should content always be split from game?
20:00 < _wart_> | f13: It's recommended, but not required
20:00 < jwb> | jeremy, spot: what about mirrors though?
20:00 < f13> | so that updates to game doesn't require re-downloading content?
20:00 < tibbs-cellp> | if its big llike docs
20:00 < ixs> | warren: music clocks usually in at 80M while content depends on the game, I've seen content up to 400MB by know.
20:00 < spot> | f13: i'd rather leave that up to the packager. some games will run without their music, some will not.
20:00 < jeremy> | jwb: the mirrors already hate me :)
20:01 < f13> | spot: a requires coudl take care of that.
20:01 < spot> | f13: yeah, but it also depends on the static nature of the content
20:01 < f13> | spot: its more of a 'I need to make this tiny patch to the game, and here's 400megs of unchanged game content. Have fun!'
20:01 < ixs> | f13: advisable. Put the game content into another package, require it from the code package just by %{version} and one could safe on downloading the content on every rebuild.
20:01 < warren> | Having 400MB of content that is the same between distros, but the package is rebuilt and differs only in NVR is going to annoy mirrors.
20:01 < warren> | 3 archs * 3 dists * 400MB
20:02 < _wart_> | game content is usually noarch
20:02 < tibbs-cellp> | should be noarch
20:02 < warren> | oh right
20:02 < warren> | still
20:02 < warren> | 3 dists * 400MB
20:02 * | spot points back to the disk is cheap
20:02 < f13> | I like the suggestion of content should be packaged seperately
20:02 < tibbs-cellp> | bandwidth
20:02 < ixs> | warren: what's your suggestion? not putting the content into FE?
20:02 < thl> | warren, maybe we should have a dist-undepended repo for such things
20:02 < spot> | i can propose that content go in dedicated packages
20:03 < _wart_> | f13: That's already in the Games SIG guidelines
20:03 < thl> | warren, but we can do that later if it becomes a problem
20:03 < f13> | if the content package doesn't change, hardlink takes care of the multiple copies.
20:03 < warren> | thl, I like that idea.
20:03 < warren> | thl, yes, we can explore that later.
20:03 < spot> | _wart_: do you need it to be explicit in the packaging guidelines?
20:03 < f13> | why wouldn't a hardlink fix that?
20:03 < f13> | if the content is exactly the same, don't use dist which would change the nevr.
20:03 < _wart_> | spot: Proibably not. It's not a hard requirement, just a strong suggestion. Mostly depends on upstream's tarballs.
20:04 < warren> | f13, requirement of NVR's to be different between distros.
20:04 < f13> | publish the same exact rpm into each dist and use hardlink.
20:04 < f13> | eeew
20:04 < spot> | ok, so to my original point...
20:04 --> | abadger1999 (Toshio Kuratomi) has joined #fedora-extras
20:04 < spot> | * Game music or audio content is permissible, as long as the content is freely distributable without restriction, and the format is not patent encumbered.
20:04 < jeremy> | spot: I think your oriiginal point is fine. it raises further questions to consider
20:05 < jwb> | yes
20:05 < spot> | can i see some +1 on that? :)
20:05 < scop> | spot, please add the "and the content is playable with packages from FC+FE" part
20:05 < warren> | Do we want to tackle the distless part?
20:05 < thl> | scop, good idea
20:05 < spot> | scop: why? what if the game is the only mechanism to play back that game music?
20:05 < jeremy> | spot: +!
20:06 < warren> | large game content packages don't need dist tags, and we can copy it between dists for hardlink purposes?
20:06 < scop> | spot, some games can optionally use eg. mp3 files if mp3 command line players / libraries are available
20:06 < thl> | scop, then it's a pacakge from FC+FE
20:06 < scop> | thl, ?
20:06 < thl> | s/scop/spot/
20:06 < thl> | sorry
20:06 < spot> | ok. i'll add the content is playable with Fedora packages from Core or Extras.
20:06 < f13> | er...
20:07 < f13> | there shouldn't be anything in FC+FE that can play mp3 content.
20:07 < ixs> | hmmmm.
20:07 < f13> | if there is, it doesn't belong in FC/FE
20:07 < scop> | f13 there is not, that was just an example
20:07 < spot> | f13: thus mp3 content would not be ok.
20:07 < _wart_> | f13: mp3 shouldn't be packaged as game music. Perhaps we should call that out explicitly?
20:07 < spot> | _wart_: i'll add that as the example
20:07 < warren> | scop, if it contains MP3 content, then theoretical 3rd party repositories outside of U.S. jurisdiction might want to ship it instead.
20:07 < ixs> | I think the "must be playable by something in FE or FC" is redundant.
20:08 < spot> | ixs: i agree.
20:08 * | f13 agrees w/ ixs
20:08 < scop> | warren, yes, of course, but that doesn't make the content package ok to be included in FC/FE in my opinion
20:08 < warren> | scop, agreed
20:08 < spot> | * Game music or audio content is permissible, as long as the content is freely distributable without restriction, and the format is not patent encumbered.
20:08 < f13> | scop: the 'format not patent encumbered' covers the mp3 issue.
20:08 < ixs> | spot: +1 from me for that.
20:08 < spot> | This rules out mp3s.
20:08 < f13> | spot: +1
20:09 < scop> | okay
20:09 < warren> | Do we want to agree upon disttag-less noarch large packages so we can hardlink them on the mirrors?
20:09 < warren> | spot, +1
20:09 < scop> | warren, that's already being done
20:09 < spot> | warren: there is no requirement to use dist tag
20:09 < jwb> | just add it into the example/suggestions
20:10 < warren> | I mean, our guidelines can suggest it so we actually do it.
20:10 < ixs> | warren: from my understanding, that needs changes in the repo-push script and possibly in the buildsystem.
20:10 < spot> | but i dont want to make it the policy, as there may be large noarch packages which are dist specific
20:10 < jwb> | in the Games SIG
20:10 < warren> | ixs, any pusher can do it, including me.
20:10 < ixs> | warren: or we'd need a new branch (DISTLESS instead of FC-5 e.g.)
20:10 < warren> | hmmm
20:10 < f13> | why don't we table that for future discussion.
20:10 < warren> | nevermind, let's explore this later
20:10 < f13> | jynx! (;
20:10 < _wart_> | jwb: That'd be a good place to try it out
20:10 < f13> | but those interested in this should do some research
20:11 * | jwb points to the SIG
20:11 < _wart_> | f13: Let's bring this up in the games sig list for further discussion
20:11 < f13> | _wart_: feel free.
20:11 < jwb> | right. that's what SIGs are for :)
20:11 < f13> | are we ready for a new topic, or spot do you have more changes for the guidelines?
20:12 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Free discussion related to extras
20:12 < spot> | thats all.
20:12 < f13> | I'd like ot talk about some content I'd like ot package.
20:12 < jeremy> | seth had a point
20:12 < warren> | ?
20:12 < jeremy> | for people who are reviewing a package, can you please be sure to assign it to yourself?
20:12 < f13> | This package 'metasploit-framework', is a set of perl stuff to investigate, develop, and test exploits.
20:13 < _wart_> | Should non-sponsors assign a package to themself if they are reviewing a package blocking NEEDSSPONSOR?
20:13 < f13> | all the content is OSS and redistributable, and I"m reasonably sure that the exploits are for known and resolved issues upstream.
20:13 < thl> | _wart_, no
20:13 < f13> | but it is useful for security folk to use against their machines to make sure that they are safe.
20:13 < jwb> | why not?
20:13 < jeremy> | _wart_: in that case, no. but otherwise, it's useful
20:14 < f13> | however, it is something of a sensitive subject to include such a tool, as it could be used for darker purposes.
20:14 < jeremy> | as you can then look over the list and have a better idea of what needs looking at
20:14 < jwb> | jeremy, thl why not?
20:14 < spot> | f13: ping can be used for sinister purposes
20:14 < thl> | jwb, I sometime think non-sponsors shouldn't review pacakges from new pacakgers at all
20:14 < ixs> | f13: personally, include it. fping and hping are in FE IIRC. They can be used for nefarious purposes. Same as nmap.
20:14 < warren> | f13, have you got bress's opinion?
20:14 < jwb> | f13, i think that package is fine
20:14 < f13> | spot: true, but ping doesn't include perl modules to hack a 3com router.
20:14 <-- | c4chris__ has quit (Connection timed out)
20:14 < f13> | warren: no, I haven't talked to bress about it yet.
20:14 < bpepple> | _wart_: They can't approve give final approval for the package being reviewed.
20:14 < thl> | jwb, so the sponsor can directly see how the pacakger interacts
20:15 < spot> | if it can be found on google, i don't think we have any worries.
20:15 < jwb> | thl, ok that's a different issue (one that i don't necessarily disagree with)
20:15 < warren> | f13, I think bress should be consulted
20:15 * | bress reads his scrollback
20:15 < f13> | _wart_: you could add yourself on CC to the bug, and offer suggestions, but a sponser should take ownership of the package and the review (IMHO)
20:15 < _wart_> | bpepple, understood. Just not sure of the exact protocol
20:16 < ixs> | f13: is that written somewhere in the guidelines? I haven't found it there and of course instantly did it wrong. ;)
20:16 < jwb> | f13, thl, jeremy: ok i can agree with all that but it needs to be clearly spelled out in the wiki
20:17 < _wart_> | f13: That's what I've been doing, but I've seen other packages not follow that protocol. What's the correct way to un-assign a bug?
20:17 < f13> | ixs: I don't know if that particular wrinkle is spelled out. We should review the review guidelines to make sure.
20:17 < spot> | f13: let me know on that
20:17 < f13> | _wart_: it has to be reassigned to somebody else. You could reassign it to the component owner.
20:17 < ixs> | f13: good. because right now we have a thread on fedora-extras-list about that. (/me blushes a bit)
20:17 < f13> | spot: sure.
20:17 * | f13 action items.
20:17 < ixs> | f13: in this case, it's a non issue. Hans is sponsoring and has reassigned it already to himself.
20:18 < warren> | tibbs, looks like you were upgraded.
20:18 < f13> | while on this subject (well, multiple subjects)
20:18 < f13> | if there isn't content, cna I quickly get a vote on this:
20:19 < f13> | If the packager needs a sponser, the reviewer must be capable of sponsoring to take ownership of the review. Other parties are welcome to make suggestions and add themselves to the CC of hte bug, but should not take ownership of the bug or the review."
20:19 < bpepple> | f13: +1
20:19 < _wart_> | f13: +1
20:19 < scop> | +1
20:19 < jwb> | +1
20:19 < thl> | +1
20:20 --> | c4chris__ (Christian Iseli) has joined #fedora-extras
20:20 < spot> | +1
20:20 < f13> | danke.
20:20 < jwb> | bitte
20:20 < f13> | bress: any opinions on the metasploit-framework subject?
20:21 < warren> | f13, if the license and copyrights are proper, I don't see any issue here by current policies. I'd say follow bresser's recommendation.
20:22 < f13> | warren: right, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't pushing a package that would result in a new policy.
20:22 < jpo> | I also have a packaging question.
20:22 < jpo> | I would like to package "perl-byacc" but the home site has disappeared a couple of years ago.
20:22 < bress> | f13: Why not include it. If anything it will attract some smart security research types to fedora. If we're vulnerable to anything in it, we have a secuirty problem we need to fix.
20:22 < jpo> | Can I just use the debian files?
20:23 < warren> | jpo, i'm guessing it hasn't changed for years?
20:23 < scop> | jpo, I don't see a problem with that
20:23 < warren> | jpo, yeah, just go ahead.
20:23 < f13> | jpo: if it's reachable for all, sure.
20:23 * | spot agrees
20:23 < jpo> | http://packages.debian.org/stable/devel/perl-byacc
20:23 < f13> | bress: ok, makes sense to me. THere are some stuff included for hardware devices and such, but *shrug* it's all OSS.
20:23 < f13> | jpo: maybe a commen tin the spec that upstream has vanished.
20:23 < spot> | +1 to that
20:23 < jpo> | sure
20:24 < bress> | f13: Indeed. If an evildoer wants to hax0r something, they'll download and install it themselves. I'm not sure if it violates any DMCA type laws though.
20:25 < spot> | let our corrupt government enforce their own laws
20:25 < f13> | bress: ooh, good point. I don't think so, as metasploit-framework has been around for a while, and they're packages are in other distros.
20:25 < warren> | bress, gdb violates the DMCA-type laws.
20:25 < spot> | i dont see any circumvention of copyright protection.
20:25 < bress> | warren: Heh, indeed :)
20:26 < warren> | f13, just do it
20:26 < thl> | k, anything else?
20:27 < thl> | sorry, got distracted
20:27 < thl> | quite late already
20:27 * | thl will close in 60
20:27 < scop> | some things for future (no need to discuss now):
20:27 < scop> | FE-Legal queue, a couple of old submissions stalled
20:27 < scop> | packaging guidelines: undefined non-weak symbols in shared libs
20:28 < thl> | scop, yeah, a FE-Legal group (or something like that) really is needed
20:28 < scop> | (that's all I had in mind)
20:28 < warren> | where is the FE-Legal queue?
20:28 < thl> | scop, let's get back to these items next week
20:28 < warren> | I'll forward it to FPB
20:28 < scop> | https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=FE-Legal
20:28 < f13> | thl: a bunch of people standing around and saying "IANAL" ? (;
20:28 --> | drpixel (Dr Pixel) has joined #fedora-extras
20:28 < thl> | warren, we have a tracker bug somewhere
20:28 < thl> | f13, :)
20:29 * | thl will close in 30
20:29 * | thl will close in 15
20:29 < thl> | MARK meeting end
20:30 --- | thl has changed the topic to: This is the Fedora Extras channel, home of the FESCo meetings and general Extras discussion. | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras | Next FESCo Meeting: 2006-05-11 1700 UTC
20:30 < thl> | thx everyone
20:30 < f13> | cheers
20:31 < warren> | scop, those two issues, they aren't something we can forward to legal.
20:32 < scop> | ok, so do you have ideas who can say something about them?
20:33 < ixs> | it's 3 issues btw, I just reopened the third one.
20:33 < scop> | #166427 is pretty clearly waiting for upstream
20:34 < scop> | #177134 needs an "ok" from $someone
20:34 < nirik99> | speaking of legal issues fun... anyone have thoughts on the license on xcompmgr: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172755
20:35 < scop> | ixs, I think a new better targeted bug should be opened for #190144
20:36 < ixs> | scop: no prob. I'll write something up tonight.
20:37 < thl> | there is also the alsa-firmware thing around
20:37 < scop> | warren, I guess that makes #177134 the only one which I could see legal wanting to say something about
20:37 < thl> | some files are okay, some not
20:38 < warren> | scop, from reading the bug, it is unclear to me whether it has the encumbered algorithms or not
20:38 < warren> | I *thought* muxing and demuxing required encoding and decoding
20:38 --> | rdieter (Rex Dieter) has joined #fedora-extras
20:39 < scop> | warren, right, *that* is what I'd like someone competent to comment on
20:39 < warren> | scop, lawyers will not look at code
20:39 --- | nman64 is now known as nman64_away
20:41 < scop> | warren, okay, but who will, and how to draw their attention to the bug?
20:41 < scop> | there will undoubtedly be other cases like that
20:41 < ixs> | warren: not necessarily. demux and mux just means that the datastream is copied without changing them into a container format.
20:41 < scop> | I thought FE-Legal was not exclusively a lawyer queue
20:41 < warren> | oh
20:42 < ixs> | warren: however _often_ the demuxers need an understanding of the datastream. That is, it might be best do just push the package into livna and be done with it.
20:43 < warren> | scop, ixs: Lawyers tend to be cautious when they don't know. Grey area usually means no.
20:43 < warren> | This package really wouldn't be bad in a theoretical 3rd party repository.